US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently proposed a congressional vote to un-authorise the Iraq war.
The Congress would do better by voting to denounce the Bush Doctrine which made the Iraq folly possible in the first place. Unchallenged, the Bush Doctrine may provide a rational for further aggressive adventures.
The post Cold-War American strategic doctrine provided for militarily confronting regional powers unfriendly to American interests, using massive conventional power, short of nuclear attack.
When president Bill Clinton did not aggressively apply the new strategic doctrine to the crisis with Iraq, neo-conservatives accused him of endangering American security. Clinton gave in to the pressure and ordered a four-day bombing campaign against Iraq on December 16, 1998.
The Bush administration reaffirmed its commitment to aggressively defending US hegemony around the world. It also introduced two novel and unsettling elements: The concept of pre-emptive war and the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons in such pre-emptive strikes.
On January 8, 2002, the Defence Department provided Congress with a classified document entitled the Nuclear Posture Review. The Los Angeles Times obtained a copy and published a summary on March 9 of that year.
The Nuclear Posture Review said: "The Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria." It listed three specific contingencies that could justify an American nuclear strike: "an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbours, a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation [with China] over the status of Taiwan."
In May 2002, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld issued an updated defence planning guidance. He ordered the American military to be ready to undertake "unwarned strikes" to swiftly defeat an enemy from "a position of forward deterrence".
Speaking to the graduating class at West Point, in June, Bush confirmed the new American strategic doctrine: "Our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."
Bush also confirmed his administration's commitment to maintaining global American hegemony against all challenges as first articulated in the Wolfowitz Defence Planning Guidance in 1992: "America has," Bush said, "and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge".
The National Security Strategy, released by the Bush administration on September 17, 2002, gave coherent articulation to the various elements of the Bush doctrine. It confirmed a new aggressive posture based on pre-emptive attacks against so-called rogue states. It openly stated that the US would never allow its military hegemony to be challenged. It warned that in defence of American interests, the US would act alone if necessary.
New war plan
The Bush doctrine was incorporated in a new war plan: CONPLAN 8022, which provided for global strike war plans, specifically against Iran and North Korea. Global Strike was specifically designed as a pre-emptive offensive war that could be launched on orders from the president within hours.
A few months later, Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to be ready to attack hostile countries "specifically Iran and North Korea".
The possibility of American use of nuclear weapons against Iran is being openly discussed. Referring to the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, retired General Barry McCaffrey told NBC News in January 2006: "To locate and then strike these disbursed and underground facilities ... would probably require not air power but nuclear weapons," (Washington Post, January 25, 06).
In March 2006, The Bush administration released its updated "National Security Strategy of the United States." The strategy document was aggressive in tone, warning China against "old ways of thinking and acting" in its competition for energy resources.
It put Russia on guard that its relations with the US would depend on its foreign and domestic behaviour. It ominously warned that diplomacy must succeed in stopping Iran's enrichment programme if "confrontation is to be avoided."
But the most unsettling aspect of the new strategy document is its confirmation of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war as the national strategy of the United States.
Both elements of the Bush doctrine, pre-emptive wars and nuclear strikes, are deeply disturbing because they carry within them the seeds of perpetual confrontation.
In threatening some countries with first nuclear strikes, they push these countries to seek protection in developing their own nuclear weapons, thus ensuring violent confrontation with Washington. In determining threats to peace, the Bush administration substitutes itself for the UN Security Council; in promoting pre-emptive wars before threats materialised, the Bush doctrine guarantees American involvement in conflicts without resolution, and wars without end. That is the Bush legacy that Congress urgently needs to repudiate.
Prof. Adel Safty is Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Novosibirsk, Russia. His latest book, Leadership and Democracy, is published in New York.
